New Orleans Hornets Will Rebrand as Pelicans in Time for 2013-2014 NBA Season

[nash61]

Not very originaI, but I don't hate it.

Am I the only one that sees the Patriots' tri-corner hat logo?

[DG_ThenNowForever]

Needs more whimsy.

[spartacat_12]

Was it really necessary to move the Hornets just to award Charlotte an expansion team two years later?

To me, it's a shame that these leagues haven't stood up and rejected these moves in the name of brand integrity. To me, a move out of a viable market should be rejected on principle if the team has any history behind it.

While this may seem like a good idea, it would take away any leverage team owners have over a city if it's a viable market. This means that cities wouldn't bother replacing old arenas because there's no threat of relocation. If the NHL was going to reject any deal that moved the Penguins out of Pittsburgh or the Islanders out of New York then they'd both probably still be playing in decrepit facilities.

As for the Hornets-Pelicans change, I'm all for it. I'm a huge fan of nicknames that are actually relevant to the home city and Hornets just makes more sense for Charlotte. I'm guessing that the leaked logo, if it's legit, will just be a secondary. The primary will probably be the same, but with a wordmark around it.

[TBGKon]

What would the present NO Hornets rebrand to, then? Maybe they can do a swap with Utah and get the Jazz name back, then Utah could swap with Memphis and become the Grizzlies, they could swap with Minnesota to get the Wolves name, and then Minnesota and L.A. could finally swap between Lakers and Wolves.

New Orleans Jazz

Utah Lakers

Los Angels Bobcats

Charlotte Hornets

Simpler, and Los Angeles doesn't have much of a wolf population.

Though I agree that this is incredibly unlikely.

That's one word for it.

Another unlikely swap I heard on a local radio show:

- Seattle Sonics

- Kings name free, goes to Memphis (think about it, you'll figure out why)

- Grizzlies name free, goes to Utah

- Jazz name free, goes to NOLA

- Hornets name free, goes to Charlotte

[Conrad.]

i'm already fearing the worst, looking at this countdown page. they're using Agency for the buttons, and i wouldnt be surprised to see the wordmark using it

on a better note, the button is yellow, so maybe the color scheme will be navy and yellow, with red accents (the leaked logo follows that, fwiw), which would be a nice way of distancing themselves from other blue-red teams.

[buckeye]

I really am hoping this identity is saved in Charlotte, I honestly feel like this is one of the most unique looks in sports, logos, jerseys and all! Even the Mardi Gras jerseys were amazing imo!

[ohryan]

On a slightly off topic, but related, note I still do not like the idea of boosters and bandwagon jumpers for colleges when they are people who never attended the college they support. It drove me crazy in the 80's to see so many Georgetown t-shirts on people who had no shot in hell to get admitted to Georgetown, or to see local yocals wearing my alma mater's sweatshirt when they have no greater connection to that school than living in the same state.

At least with state schools, citiizens of the state can say they support the team because their tax dollars help fund it, but for private schools like Villanova, Notre Dame or Stanford the only folks wearing those school's merch should be students, employees and alums. But, of course, that is not a good position from a sales or marketing standpoint. I realize this. It just irks me. Laundry. It's all laundry.

Double-edged sword. I agree with you in regards to the private school thing and even take it to the level of the state schools. It is incredible to me how many folks-- season ticket holders around me, even-- did not attend, much less graduate from from my alma mater, LSU. But they are fervent fans.

Then there's the other state college "fans" here in the southeast, which I'm sure are somewhat common throughout the country to some degree. The ones who go to campus for game day, but don't go to games. The ones who didn't go to any college AT ALL and may not have even have gotten out of high school. The drunk, ignorant ones calling in on radio shows... a classic example, the Alabama "fan" who poisoned the oak trees at Auburn. I have friends who have graduated from schools including Texas, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and we have all commiserated that such "fans" screw things up for us and add to stereotypes.

I see where you're coming from in that citizens of the state can say they support the team because their tax dollars help fund it, but furthermore at least in places like Alabama, and maybe Arkansas, it's as if the state university is people's "pro" team-- especially if they are winners.

Now regarding private colleges, I also see where you are coming from, but I can tell you that Tulane University would LOVE if people who had no shot in hell to get admitted to Tulane would cheer for them, or have local yocals wearing Tulane sweatshirts when they have no greater connection to that school than living in the same metro area. They lost the "local team" angle about 40-50 years ago with the huge increase in middle-class baby boomer kids going to college, the completion of the interstate system making it easier to get to places like Baton Rouge, Lafayette, & Hammond, the rise of UNO, and the inception of the Saints. They also have very few younger alumni in town and are in need for local support, rather than the current local perception of "that school for rich, outsider Yankees in Uptown that I have no connection to".

.....man, I took this thread further off-topic. Carry on. Fly, Pelicans, Fly!!!

I don't mean to derail this thread either, so I'll try to keep this brief, but I just wanted to add my "two cents" to this since it is a pet peeve of mine as well - although I view it from the other side.

I grew up in a small town in Iowa. I've been an avid sports fan my entire life and have been watching/attending Iowa football and basketball games since I was a small child (my family have been Hawkeye fans for decades). For the first 17 years of my life, I lived and breathed Hawkeye athletics. I watched all the games, wore all the gear and idolized the players. Up until my senior year of high school, if you asked me where I was going to college, there was no question I was going to Iowa. When it came time to actually choose a college to attend, I applied and was accepted to Iowa, but then fell in love with a smaller school that proved to be a much better fit for my desired course of studies. I decided that as much as I loved the University of Iowa athletic teams, I wasn't going to school to play football or basketball, I was going for academics. Therefore I chose the smaller school and have never once regretted my decision. I graduated with honors from my school (which is governed by the same board of regents), so that shoots down the notion that I couldn't "get in" or couldn't graduate from Iowa.

So was I just supposed to quit being a Hawkeye fan at that point? Was I just supposed to just forget all the joy and heartbreak and emotional investment that I poured into the Hawkeyes my entire life? Was I supposed to purge my wardrobe of anything Hawkeye related (which was a sizeable portion) because I was no longer allowed to be a fan?

I have several friends who chose not to go a traditional four-year college so they could focus on vocational or tech-related schools, many of them are extremely successful in their fields today - more so than some friends with degrees from Iowa. Are they not allowed to root for the Hawkeyes anymore since they didn't attend Iowa?

According to this logic, my cousin - who flunked/drank his way out of Iowa after one year - is allowed to still be a Hawkeye fan for the rest of his life, but I'm not because I happend to make more responsible choices?

Now, a decade or so out of college, I have gone on recieved another degree (not from Iowa either) and lead a very happy life with a wonderful family and a great career. I'm still the same avid Hawkeye fan that I've always been. If that makes me one of the "local yocals wearing (your) alma mater's sweatshirt when (I) have no greater connection to that school than living in the same state," then so be it. I wouldn't trade places with my cousin for anything - even if he is considered by some to be a more worthy Hawkeye fan than I am.

[CrazyTex00]

STOP IT! STOP IT! STOP IT! they will not get the Jazz back.

Look the minute the "Pelicans" make the playoffs or the NBA Finals the name won't matter the only thing that will matter is that it says NEW ORLEANS on the jersey.

Just look at the OKC Thunder.

Geaux Pelicans!

[hugevolsfan]

Yeah the argument you can't be a fan of a college or university unless you attended there is ridiculous.

I have bee a UT fan since I was kid but never really had a desire to go there for my academics because I did not feel it was a good fit for me.

Instead I graduated from a local community college & from Tusculum for my bachelors.

[TaylorMade]

What would the present NO Hornets rebrand to, then? Maybe they can do a swap with Utah and get the Jazz name back, then Utah could swap with Memphis and become the Grizzlies, they could swap with Minnesota to get the Wolves name, and then Minnesota and L.A. could finally swap between Lakers and Wolves.

New Orleans Jazz

Utah Lakers

Los Angels Bobcats

Charlotte Hornets

Simpler, and Los Angeles doesn't have much of a wolf population.

Though I agree that this is incredibly unlikely.

That's one word for it.

Another unlikely swap I heard on a local radio show:

- Seattle Sonics

- Kings name free, goes to Memphis (think about it, you'll figure out why)

- Grizzlies name free, goes to Utah

- Jazz name free, goes to NOLA

- Hornets name free, goes to Charlotte

Yes, we need an Elvis-inspired logo scheme in the NBA.

[DC in Da House w/o a Doubt]

That's pretty ridiculous to think Seattle would embrace anything the Kings ever did. Why should they? Honestly, I don't get why it's so hard to some to understand that.

What I find ridiculous is that you could see a team that, for seventy years was the Royals/Kings, but say "oh yeah, this is the same franchise that won the 1979 NBA Championship" just because they're wearing Sonics uniforms.

You're thinking of it too literally. It wouldn't be the same franchise, no. But imagine you're a Sonics 2.0 fan, and you're at a bar talkin trash with a Blazers fan. If the subject of titles won comes up, isn't he allowed to say "Oh yeah?! Well we won it all in '79!"... he'd be right. The Sonics won it all in '79. He is a Sonics fan. Its not like Blazers fan would say "NO! That's the Thunder's!"

Well no. He didn't win a damn thing. I don't go around saying "we haven't won it since '67." It goes back to my opinion that fans who think they have some sort of ownership over teams are either naive or delusional. Packers fans excluded, of course.

A fan of the Sonics 2.0's just going to be a fan of the Royals/Kings. The team he's rooting for didn't "win it all in '79." Like it or not, the Oklahoma City Thunder are the team that won the 1979 NBA Championship. They were just wearing green and gold and going by the name "Seattle SuperSonics" at the time.

Why do you even root for teams then if you can't celebrate their championships? And I'm a Nats fan, you think that makes me an Expos fan? Hardly. Our pregame hype videos have footage of Frank Howard, Walter Johnson, etc and they weren't even Nationals, they were Senators. We use their history, not the friggin Expos. If the Expos had won it all, I promise you we wouldn't fly a banner for it in Nats Park. Because they'd have won it all in MONTREAL. Not WASHINGTON. We do however, fly a banner for the 1924 Senators who won the 1924 World Series, because they were WASHINGTON's team.

So same thing for the Sonics 2.0. They'll honor the first Sonics and rightfully so, because that was Seattle's team. No Seattle fan is going to pretend to give a crap about stuff won in Sacramento or Kansas City.

You're still taking it too literally.

[BBTV]

yeah i mean its sports, its not important. now if a country moved it would be a different story. so like if the maple leafs moved to philadelfia i'd still be all about bobby clark and HEXTALL SCREW YOU TOMAS KABERLY. but if canada moved to pennsylvania id have to read all about the queen and love her and the brett heart.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

That's pretty ridiculous to think Seattle would embrace anything the Kings ever did. Why should they? Honestly, I don't get why it's so hard to some to understand that.

What I find ridiculous is that you could see a team that, for seventy years was the Royals/Kings, but say "oh yeah, this is the same franchise that won the 1979 NBA Championship" just because they're wearing Sonics uniforms.

You're thinking of it too literally. It wouldn't be the same franchise, no. But imagine you're a Sonics 2.0 fan, and you're at a bar talkin trash with a Blazers fan. If the subject of titles won comes up, isn't he allowed to say "Oh yeah?! Well we won it all in '79!"... he'd be right. The Sonics won it all in '79. He is a Sonics fan. Its not like Blazers fan would say "NO! That's the Thunder's!"

Well no. He didn't win a damn thing. I don't go around saying "we haven't won it since '67." It goes back to my opinion that fans who think they have some sort of ownership over teams are either naive or delusional. Packers fans excluded, of course.

A fan of the Sonics 2.0's just going to be a fan of the Royals/Kings. The team he's rooting for didn't "win it all in '79." Like it or not, the Oklahoma City Thunder are the team that won the 1979 NBA Championship. They were just wearing green and gold and going by the name "Seattle SuperSonics" at the time.

Why do you even root for teams then if you can't celebrate their championships? And I'm a Nats fan, you think that makes me an Expos fan? Hardly. Our pregame hype videos have footage of Frank Howard, Walter Johnson, etc and they weren't even Nationals, they were Senators. We use their history, not the friggin Expos. If the Expos had won it all, I promise you we wouldn't fly a banner for it in Nats Park. Because they'd have won it all in MONTREAL. Not WASHINGTON. We do however, fly a banner for the 1924 Senators who won the 1924 World Series, because they were WASHINGTON's team.

So same thing for the Sonics 2.0. They'll honor the first Sonics and rightfully so, because that was Seattle's team. No Seattle fan is going to pretend to give a crap about stuff won in Sacramento or Kansas City.

You're still taking it too literally.

It's all well and good to remember all the championships from your city, and for one team to acknowledge the championships of its predecesor. But franchise continuity is important; and it's just wrong to ignore this. I can't imagine how a fan of a team can be completely uninterested in the team's history. The fact that the Nationals came from Montreal is part of your team's history; it should indeed mean something to you.

Over the weekend I was watching some baseball stuff on YouTube. I stumbled onto this clip from the 1972 World Series, which was the first Series that I saw.

That clip has the opening of the NBC telecast and the player intros from Game 1 at Oakland. Check out what happens at 11:10 -- they have Lefty Grove throw out the first ball. Grove is introduced with a reference to 1931, which the stadium announcer says is the last year that the A's were in the World Series.

I had this thread in mind when I watched the clip, and was happy to see the acknowledgement of franchise continuity. I was also reminded of Roy Campanella Day, which took place at the LA Coliseum (where Campanella never played) in 1959, and which held the mark of the highest attendance at a baseball game until the recent Dodger-Red Sox exhibition game there that drew over 100,000.

These things represent the right attitude towards franchise continuity, as does the Warren Spahn statue in Atlanta, the games in which the Orioles wore St. Louis Browns uniforms, the games in which the Texas Rangers wore Washington Senators uniforms, the games in which the LA Clippers wore Buffalo Braves uniforms, the games in which the Kansas City Chiefs wore Dallas Texans uniforms, and so on. To a sports fan, games are not ephemeral; they represent chapters in a decades-long story. If we don't acknowledge and respect history, then we lose much of what we perceive as the meaning of sports.

In short: history matters.

[jhans203]

My money is on similar jerseys to their current set just in the new colors.

[IceCap]

Why do you even root for teams then if you can't celebrate their championships?

This point of view always amuses me. "YOU MUST NOT CARE BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT BEING A FAN IN THE RIGHT WAY!"

I may have been young, but I was there when the Jays beat the Phillies to win the World Series, and should the Leafs ever win a Stanley Cup in my lifetime I'll celebrate like you wouldn't believe.

See, I get that cheering and celebrating wins is a great experience. It's part of being a fan. There's nothing wrong that. What I find absurd, however, is the notion that cheering gives a fan, or the community, some sort of unique connection to the team. They don't have that. It's a business first and foremost. I'm able to recognize that fact and still have a good time. My enjoyment doesn't hinge on me having to pretend that I somehow "own" part of the Blue Jays or Maple Leafs because I cheer at the right moments.

And I'm a Nats fan, you think that makes me an Expos fan? Hardly.

How you choose to view the Nats' pre-Washington existence is up to you. If you don't care about the Expos then ok. Still doesn't change the fact that the Expos are part of the Nationals' lineage though. You may not care, and that's fine, but it's still there.

I like it, but I have a feeling that this will be the team's secondary and de facto primary. The primary will probably include the text "NEW ORLEANS PELICANS" in some form and rarely see use, because that's how things work in the NBA.

I do find it lacking a bit of local flavour though. Like it's a good logo for a basketball team named the Pelicans, but nothing about it stands out as being the logo for a New Orleans based club. And isn't that a bit silly, if this is indeed the logo? Wasn't the whole point of the re-brand to tie team's identity in with the community?

[kiwi_canadian]

What would the present NO Hornets rebrand to, then? Maybe they can do a swap with Utah and get the Jazz name back, then Utah could swap with Memphis and become the Grizzlies, they could swap with Minnesota to get the Wolves name, and then Minnesota and L.A. could finally swap between Lakers and Wolves.

New Orleans Jazz

Utah Lakers

Los Angels Bobcats

Charlotte Hornets

Simpler, and Los Angeles doesn't have much of a wolf population.

Though I agree that this is incredibly unlikely.

That's one word for it.

Another unlikely swap I heard on a local radio show:

- Seattle Sonics

- Kings name free, goes to Memphis (think about it, you'll figure out why)

- Grizzlies name free, goes to Utah

- Jazz name free, goes to NOLA

- Hornets name free, goes to Charlotte

All well and good except these guys might have an issue with this...

[DC in Da House w/o a Doubt]

Ice Cap, you do a good job of putting words in people's mouths. I don't even know what we're talking about any more.

If you wanna keep this goin or clarify or whatever, my inbox is open to you.

[IceCap]

Yeah, you do a good job of putting words in people's mouths.

Not really. You're the one who questioned how I could be a fan because I didn't follow your version of fandom.

[Foxxtrot44]

I actually kinda like the full logo..even though it still has a bit of an airline feel.

https://twitter.com/...5315456/photo/1

[IceCap]

Ok, now THAT'S got some local flavour.

I didn't like the name at first, because pelicans are kind of goofy, but the more I think about it the more I like it. It's nice to see an identity that ties in with New Orleans yet doesn't play on over-done Mardi Gras imagery. Well done Hornicans.